Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Now as for protecting employees it is a scientific fact that exposure to second hand smoke is detrimental; it has does all the damage that the smoke does through the smokers lungs and long term exposure will deliver the concequences; now the question is this - are employees consenting to this exposure by continuing to work a job where they are being exposed, are employers liable to the health damages incurred, is the employer legally bound to maintain a healthy work environment and how may that be delivered - bit it better ventilation systems to keep smoking areas contained or banning smoking to protect themselves from future lawsuits (and maybe even attract all that extra business that non-smoking venues will attract).

You seem to be assuming that employers will do things voluntarily, when in fact history shows otherwise.

Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.

Do you think that society needs the state to step in when people do things that aren't in their best interests?

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Historicism is a highlight of authoritrian systems according to some; employers will act in their own interests - and if that interest is making more money by running a clean non-smoking venue then they will do that and if it means covering their arses from loosing house and home to a former employees lawsuit or fines and workplace investigations then they will do that. You seem to assume that regulation and prohibition is the solution.

Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does. There are multiple sides to the argument of bans and it doesn't boil down to good versus evil.

If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.

BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.

When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.

People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.

"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.

The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.

An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.

Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.

"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.

But the ordinance also had its critics.

Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.

Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel- good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Because there is a question of consensuality on behalf of the employee versis the obligations of the employer given the known damage that second hand smoke does.

The rights of the employees to not contract cancer and other diseases associated with smoking come before any rights of employers who allow smoking in their workplaces.

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If the precautionary principle guided all public policy then why shouldn't we ban things that will kill people outright like tobacco, fatty foods, tanning salons and yes alcohol because even though moderate use is positive it is still the most highly abused drug.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer because kids in cars can't consent and harming them is child abuse.

This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye ( i.e. the foods we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc. etc.) - obviously.

This is such bullshit from the extreme politically correct facists - I was born in 1960 to 2 parents that smoked (that was quite common back then) - both me and my sister spent 20 years in my parents company - in the smoke filled house, the smoke filled car etc. etc. Neither of us has asthma or ANY "smoke related" diseases. In fact most people I know grew up in exactly the same kind of smoke filled atmospheres as I did and NONE of them have any "smoke related" diseases (even those who still smoke). During those years it was extremely rare to meet ANYONE that had asthma - I mean ANYONE!!! Now it seems to be rampant (along with peanut allergies) in kids everywhere. This CANNOT be because of smoking because now hardly anyone smokes in front of children - if you do you are labelled "evil" and a "child abuser" - therefore I pose this question...why, if most people are trying so hard to not expose children to second hand smoke, why are there SO MANY more children with asthma????????????????????????????
Having said that I still believe it's a good idea not to expose children to second hand smoke but I just can't stand society constantly using smoking as an excuse for every health problem. There is much more to the picture than meets the eye (i.e. the food we eat, trans fats, exhaust, pollution, chemicals etc.) - obviously.